Sandeep Kumar vs State of Punjab and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—Sandeep Kumar through present petition filed by his under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the admission of respondent No. 4 and further to direct the official respondents to grant him admission in his (respondent No. 4) place to the E. T. T. course for the sessions 1998-2000 from the sports category.

Brief facts on which relief aforesaid is sought to rest reveal that the entrance test for admission to E.T.T. course was conducted for the session 1998-2000 on 7-2-1999 which was to start w.e.f. 1-4-1999. Petitioner appeared in the said test in sports category having B Grade certificate from the Sports Directorate, Punjab. The result of E. T. T. Entrance examination was published in the Tribune on 1-3-1999, The petitioner could, however, make it to waiting list only even though at No. 1. Respondent No.4 who likewise had competed in the entrance test in the category of petitioner under the sports category was at No. 53. The selected candidates were asked by the Principal District Education and Training Institute to join on or before 26-3-1999. The Principal D. I. E. T. addressed a letter to the Convener E. T. T. ENTRANCE TEST 1998-2000-cum-Director Public Instructions (Primary-Punjab Government, Chandigarh informing that only 96 students have been admitted in the institute and respondent No. 4 who was from sports category did not come for admission. In the wake of this letter petitioner approached the Secretary Eduction Department, Punjab, Chandigarh on 17-4-1999 and requested him that as selected candidate did not join the course, he may be given admission to the sports category. On 6-5-1999, the petitioner was told that he could not be granted admission as respondent No. 4 has now been admitted.

It is so pleaded and contended by Mr. Pipat, learned Counsel representing the petitioner that respondent No.4 did not join the institute within the stipulated period of 15 days from 1-3-1999 or thereafter on 26-3-1999 as desired by Principal District Education and Training Institute and his seat, thus, fell vacant. That vide letter dated 1-4-1999 his seat was declared to be vacant and thererore, petitioner was entitled to admission as a matter of right. It is thus, the primary contention of the learned Counsel that respondent No. 4 had been accommodated after the due date and in that manner favoured by the respondents.

Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondents have contested the cause of petitioner. Respondents No. l to 3 have filed their written statement whereas respondent No. 4 even though served did not choose to file written statement. In fact, no representation has been made by respondent No. 4 during the course of hearing by this Court. It appears from the records of the case that the Counsel did appear for respondent No. 4 till such time the matter was admitted but thereafter his presence has not been recorded in the interim orders passed from time to time.

In the written statement that has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 it has inter alia been pleaded that Varesh Singh respondent No. 4 who secured 62.50% was placed in the merit list and petitioner who secured 56% marks was placed in the waiting list. It is further stated that the result of E. T. T. Entrance Test session 1998-2000 was published in the press on 28-2-1999 and 1-3-1999 and the candidates were directed to see the Principal of D. I. E. T. concerned within fifteen days from the date of publication of the results. The last date of receipt of application was extended up to 10-1-1999. As per information recived from the Principal D. I. E. T. vide his letter dated 22-4-1999, following four candidates did not join :--

Rupinderjit Kaur

Basant Kumar

Gurdeep Singh

Varesh Singh

i) Harwinder Kaur who was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list, was accommodated as Rupinderjit Kaur of general female category did not join.

ii) Kulwant of scheduled caste category was accommodated against Basnt Kumar who also belonged to scheduled caste category as he did not join the course.

iii) Amardeep Singh of the category of Freedom Fighter who was at Sr. No. 1 of the waiting list was accommodated on the seat which should have gone to Gurdeep Singh of the same category as Gurdeep Singh did not join the course.

iv) Varesh Singh (respondent No. 4) was, however, allowed to join after submission of sports category certificate after production of sports gradation certificate dated 6-4-1999.

The written statement relevant contents whereof have been reproduced above would clearly go to show that whereas all those who were in the waiting list on No. 1 were accommodated and, thus, given admission on account of non-joining of the candidate of the same category within the time stipulated as detailed above, it is only Varesh Singh respondent No. 4 who was favoured. In his case the last date for admission was not adhered to at all. He was given admission 26-4-1999 and he had obtained the relevant sports gradation certificate only on 6-4-1999, it is rather strange that respondent No. 4 who had not even obtained the sports certificate which only entitled him to be admitted in the sports category before the due date was given admission on 26-4-1999 when such a favourable treatrrient was not given to anyone else. For all those who did not join the course nobody bothered and in fact, in the said categories whosover was at waiting list No. 1 was given admission. The fact referred to above leave an undeniable impression upon the Court that the respondent No. 4 did have influence where it mattered and was able to obtain admission out of way.

In view of what has been said above, a direction is issued to the official respondents to forthwith to give admission to the petitioner and if by doing so respondent No. 4 is to be replaced, the same be done.

At this stage Mr. Pipat contends that the petitioner was not at fault at all and a considerable time has elapsed which may into shortage of lectures of the petitioner and that shortage of lectures should be condoned by this Court. For his aforesaid contention, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in Miss Sumedha Kalia and other Vs. State of Haryana and others, . I need not go into this issue at this stage. Suffice it, however, to observe that if petitioner makes representation to that effect to the concarned authorities, they should consider it in accordance with law.

Copy of the order be given Dasti to the Counsel representing the parties under the signatures of the Court Secretary.